ORDER :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. Aditya Pandya for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. N. R. Parikh for the respondent No. 1 – Bank.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition and with the consent of the learned advocates of the parties and at the insistence of learned advocate Mr. N. R. Parikh for the respondent No. 1 – Bank to pass the order, the matter is taken up for hearing today.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. N. R. Parikh waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 – Bank. Though served no one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

4.1 The petitioner – partnership firm availed the financial assistance from the respondent No. 1 – Bank consisting of overdraft limit of Rs. 280 lakhs, FITL of Rs. 64.16 lakhs, term loan of Rs. 108.60 lakhs and term loan (subsidy) of Rs. 82.92 lakhs in the year 2009.

4.2 The petitioner firm could not repay the outstanding dues of the respondent – Bank in the year 2009 and further in 2017. Therefore, the respondent – Bank issued a notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstru